peer review 6

The assignment is basically providing feedback to 3 papers, a 1 page papers, by answering 4 questions, a complete and satisfying answer.

Find in the attachment 3 files that needs to be revise, and when revising keep in mind:

1. The assignment discerption:

Exchanging quality feedback is at the core of this project. As a student-driven publication, peer feedback will be the only guidance writers will have when revising for the final submission. It’s crucial, therefore, that you engage thoughtfully and thoroughly in this workshop process.

Specifically, you are asked to review the submissions assigned to you and provide evidence-based feedback for each piece. You will be awarded points to the degree to which you engage with the review process, the quality of your remarks, and the relative amount of feedback.

Quality feedback begins by knowing what the goals are—in this case, the goals of The Exchange, as well as the author’s particular goals. Feedback is information about how the writer is doing in achieving those goals. It’s important to note that this is not the same thing as advice. Quality feedback lets the writer know what you as a reader are experiencing, what you perceive the writing to convey, and which specific parts of the text trigger those experiences. Advice indicates what a writer might do next. The problem is that we often get (and give) advice before the feedback—or worse, without any feedback—which isn’t as credible or helpful.

Nor should feedback be confused with editing. Getting wrapped up in surface-level issues and minor grammatical errors will only detract from our primary goal of providing the writer with useful information about their argument, its aims, and its possibilities.

2. To provide quality feedback:

» Focus on explaining your experience as a reader

» Empathize with other readers and consider how they might experience the piece

» Support all your observations and suggestions with lots (and lots) of evidence

» Be detailed, thoughtful, and thorough in your comments

You are asked to provide feedback on submissions that are designed to be:

» Relevant and compelling to the audiences of OSU;

» Rhetorically savvy in their use of language, tone, and style in alignment with their target audiences;

» Focused in scope and size, typically ranging between 300 and 600 words.


*Your review will be guided by a series of questions; please read the following questions, and answer it in a separate word file for each one:

Q1. Trait Identification: Choose

Does the manuscript have an identifiable argument—explicit or implicit—that calls for a change in perspective, belief, or behavior?

Absolutely

or Perhaps, but it’s difficult

or Sorry, not seeing it

Q2. Scaled Responses: Rate it from 0 to 5, and explain the rating ‘use eevidences’:

1. How well does the author make the chosen topic relevant and compelling to the targeted audience? Specifically where and how so?

2. How well does the author’s strategic choice of language, tone and style contribute to the argument’s effectiveness for engaging its audience? Specifically where and how so?

3. How well does the author integrate evidence and support to establish a relevant and compelling argument? Specifically where and how so?

Q3. Contextual Comments:

determine the weaknesses in the text and help to fix it. Also determine the strong points, and how to improve it? Need to use quotes for each one.

Q4. Final Comments:

Please craft a formal letter to the author in the space below, wherein you provide quality feedback about the piece in its current state, where you think it can productively develop, and any other considerations for how their writing can become more compelling. Remember that your aim with feedback is to:

» Keep the goals of the project and the author in the forefront of your mind.

» Focus on explaining your experience as a reader.

» Empathize with other readers and consider how they might experience the piece » Support all your observations and suggestions with lots (and lots) of evidence.

» Be detailed, thoughtful, and thorough in your comments.

You might begin your letter by providing a brief summary of the piece. What is the central topic of the submission? What message is being communicated? Beginning with an overview of the piece will demonstrate to the author that you have carefully read and worked to understand their piece. Your letter might then elaborate on your experience as a reader. How do you respond to the rhetorical approach the writer has chosen? How might others respond? What is working particularly well and why do you think so? How do you consider the writer’s use of support for their claims? How are you engaging with the ideas of the piece, the language and tone used to convey them, and their specific arrangement? Follow this feedback with specific suggestions for how the author might further develop and revise the submission to create a more compelling piece. How might the writer further develop their use of evidence, logical reasoning, or organization of ideas? Are their counter-arguments that the writer should anticipate and respond to? Which specific elements of the piece warrant revision in terms of language, tone, and style? What are some ways in which the piece could be made more compelling and creative? Remember, your goal here to help them evolve their argument so that it succeeds in provoking new beliefs, kindling fresh ideas, and facilitating the kinds of change the writer wishes to see realized. Providing quality feedback along these lines will not only help the writer improve, but it will also help you for thinking about how your own piece might be revised.

Please your work needs to be accurate and specific.